WHEN ENOUGH OF US KNOW
During this holiday season I've found many opportunities to do civil informationing. At one party I actually met a guy who works for NIST ( not in a division of structural engineering ) who had never even heard of WTC 7. When I gave him the basics ( 5:20 pm 9/11/01, 47 floors, over 500 ft. tall, symmetrical collapse exactly like a known controlled demolition, 5.6 seconds: about the time it would take for a bowling ball to hit the ground if dropped off the top of the building,) he looked at me like I was nuts.
Then I told him that the major barrier to understanding this is not intellectual, it is EMOTIONAL,
BECAUSE THE IMPLICATIONS SO SUCK.
I could see his wheels churning, so I changed the subject (it being a holiday party and all,) but on some level this guy is now inoculated with information that could change his life.
When doing civil informationing, a PROMPT of sorts could help us. "9/11 Truth Now" on a black T-shirt immediately brands us to many as conspiracy nuts due to major media disinformation. A flanking approach might be more effective:
I propose:
WHEN ENOUGH OF US KNOW
Your choice of typeface. Your choice of shirt, or cap, or bumper sticker, or anywhere else you think of . . . so that these words come before the eyes of as many people as possible.
"When enough of us know what?" When you're asked this (and you will be asked ) offer your best condensed piece of information, just enough to get through a crack in consciousness, and then tell them that the main barrier to understanding this is not intellectual, it is EMOTIONAL, BECAUSE THE IMPLICATIONS SO SUCK (or something to that effect.)
Bingo: delivery of a requested Trojan Horse. For every person who asks you "know what?" dozens will see these words and wonder. Nobody likes to think of themselves as ignorant, and because we're making them ASK, we're creating a much higher level of receptivity.
This is important: Make it short. Too much information at this point will send the uninitiated into brain lock down.
This is important: say: The main barrier to understanding this is not intellectual, it is EMOTIONAL, BECAUSE THE IMPLICATIONS SO SUCK.
When I tell this to people I do my best to remember the first time I "got it." For me it was watching Building 7 come straight down. For you ( Jon : )) it may have been "The Bush Administration was predominantly made up of members of an organization called "The Project For A New American Century." This group produced a document entitled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that said the "process of transformation" they wanted our military to undertake would take an excessively long time, unless there was a "catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
Choose ONE THING ( information overload = defensiveness ) preferably that one thing that tipped the scales for YOU. Now it will carry your own emotional authenticity.
When enough people think to themselves "know what?", enough of us will know, and the point will tip . . .
- decimus's blog
- Login to post comments
As you say, propaganda is
As you say, propaganda is designed to evoke an emotional response, not an intellectual response, to pursuade the masses to support Government policy without question. I came across this quote from Michael Rivero who is an American journalist and I think it sums up the situation quite well:
"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.''
Us critical thinkers who have 'woken up' are no longer fooled but most people face an internal, contradictory dilemma that is very difficult to resolve.
WOW, WELL SAID SCUBADIVER
"To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.''
North Texans for 911 Truth
http://www.northtexas911truth.com/
North Texans for 911 Truth Meetup Site
http://9-11.meetup.com/249/
Inoculations
I'm thinking more along the lines of one concentrated HIT of irrefutable information. Then let it be. More like infecting someone with a virus than punching a hole in a dam.
The implications of waking up are so massive that, even though I consider myself a critical thinker, I have had to choose very carefully what I do with the rest of my life ( my day job for instance, is working with adults who have physical and/or cognitive disabilities, which demands my immediate caring/service attention all day, so that at the end of the day I know I've done something of great value. . . I have to do this to stay even remotely sane.)
Col. Jessup in "A Few Good Men" could have been speaking to me when he railed "You can't handle the truth!"
He was right: I couldn't handle it. But I wanted to handle it, and had to rethink my life so that I could look and see and not get sucked into the black hole of implications to the point I failed to function.
Sometimes the "virus" of information will blossom in the one/s you're talking to. Other times it will die right there. We should know that when people shut down immediately and block this new information out they are doing it out of self preservation, in effect saying " I can't handle the truth!"
Maybe not now, or next year, but eventually, if they sincerely wish to be able to handle the truth, they'll find their own way there.
Like LeftWright says: The Truth will set us free. Love is the only way forward.
I have a new strategy that works when addressing people...
I ask casually, "have you the 9/11 conspiracy stuff?"
They respond "no."
Then I casually say, "They (9/11 truth people) make some valid points."
"Like what?"
"Like the fact that there were 3 buildings in NY to collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint, and only 2 planes struck. They make the case for controlled demo being the cause of the 3 building failures." Then hit them with the bullet points on AE911truth.org.
If you start as if you are a conspiracy theorist, the conversation won't work. If you bring it up like the conspiracy theorists have valid points, people will be more receptive. You can then right the wrongs later:)
That's a very good idea
Speaking of "Conspiracy Theorists" as "they" serves to disarm those programmed by MainStreamMedia to dismiss the subject of 9/11/01 truth outright.
We could extend this further by pointing out a couple of the most popular straw man arguments made against the "conspiracists" and marvel at the lengths to which disinformation ops will go to shut down critical thought!
The overwhelming majority of information most people get about 9/11 Truth is engineered to dismiss, discredit, insult and ridicule the ones asking the questions. OK, so that's their play. We capitalize on this by referring to 9/11 Truth proponents as "they."
"They" have some really good points . . .
Why does almost everyone of TV and newspapers refuse to address "their" points . . .?
One suggestion you might want to consider, sweetwood.
You state in your prepared speech, "Like the fact that there were 3 buildings in NY to collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint,:"
I would suggest modifying this statement somewhat, as it appears that while videos of the towers WTC1 and 2 destruction do show signs of an explosive driven demolition, the two towers didn't actually collapse into their own footprint as did WTC 7 (and most standard controlled demolitions), True, the towers collapsed straight down, at more or less free fall speed, but substantial debris was flung up to "two football fields away" and some of the massive steel girders flung off during the collapse embedded themselves in neighboring buildings.
This video and commentary on the North Tower collapse from www.ae911truth.org explains it better than I can. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=channel_page (How anyone could watch this video and still believe that the towers' destruction was solely a gravity driven collapse brought on by structural failure is beyond me.)
Don't mean to be a nitpicker, and I hope you take this suggestion in the spirit in which it is offered. I do applaud you for your courage in speaking out and not remaining silent, but at the same time, I think we should always be careful not to unnecessarily give anyone even the slightest excuse to accuse us (911 truthers) of exaggerating or twisting evidence to back our "conspiracy theory.".
Thanks Stewball. I actually
Thanks Stewball. I actually get the facts straight when engaged in the discourse...just too lazy to write it ALL out here, as it is not the main point I was trying to make. Focusing on the method and approach. Thanks for setting me straight:)
On another note, I have refined my approach even further in a recent conversation. When you talk about "the conspiracy theorists" and what they believe, it really breaks down and disarms the subject.